Comments on: A 3D Computed Tomography Scan Of The Liujiang Cranium http://anthropology.net/2008/07/17/a-3d-computed-tomography-scan-of-the-liujiang-cranium/ Beyond bones & stones Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:33:20 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: thomasfortenberry.net » Blog Archive » The Liujiang Cranium Gets Scanned and Continues the Debate http://anthropology.net/2008/07/17/a-3d-computed-tomography-scan-of-the-liujiang-cranium/#comment-11921 thomasfortenberry.net » Blog Archive » The Liujiang Cranium Gets Scanned and Continues the Debate Sun, 27 Jul 2008 05:08:58 +0000 http://anthropologynet.wordpress.com/?p=1025#comment-11921 [...] A 3D Computed Tomography Scan Of The Liujiang Cranium [...] [...] A 3D Computed Tomography Scan Of The Liujiang Cranium [...]

]]> By: terryt http://anthropology.net/2008/07/17/a-3d-computed-tomography-scan-of-the-liujiang-cranium/#comment-11870 terryt Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:06:16 +0000 http://anthropologynet.wordpress.com/?p=1025#comment-11870 Luis: "He was not from Mars nor other Homo species". Homo sapiens must have evolved from some other Homo species. As you say they didn't come from Mars. The question is how widespread were members of the species from which Homo sapiens evolved? Presumably early members of the new species could breed with members of the original species. It is therefore a mistake to assume that only members of modern Y- and mtDNA haplogroups were involved in any original expansion, if, in fact, there was but a single expansion. Besides which we can assume that many haplogroups that were part of any African Exodus have become extinct. Luis: “He was not from Mars nor other Homo species”. Homo sapiens must have evolved from some other Homo species. As you say they didn’t come from Mars. The question is how widespread were members of the species from which Homo sapiens evolved? Presumably early members of the new species could breed with members of the original species. It is therefore a mistake to assume that only members of modern Y- and mtDNA haplogroups were involved in any original expansion, if, in fact, there was but a single expansion. Besides which we can assume that many haplogroups that were part of any African Exodus have become extinct.

]]> By: hal barton http://anthropology.net/2008/07/17/a-3d-computed-tomography-scan-of-the-liujiang-cranium/#comment-11867 hal barton Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:08:00 +0000 http://anthropologynet.wordpress.com/?p=1025#comment-11867 looking at the longness of the skull, makes you wonder exactly when the mongolian inhabitants arrived there - what would have changed the human stock into the distinctive mongoloids? And when? I've not been able to find much about it. looking at the longness of the skull, makes you wonder exactly when the mongolian inhabitants arrived there – what would have changed the human stock into the distinctive mongoloids? And when? I’ve not been able to find much about it.

]]> By: Luis http://anthropology.net/2008/07/17/a-3d-computed-tomography-scan-of-the-liujiang-cranium/#comment-11854 Luis Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:49:39 +0000 http://anthropologynet.wordpress.com/?p=1025#comment-11854 @ Terryt: <i>Luis wrote: “preference for the older possible dates … seems like untenable on light of all the other known evidence, specially … genetics”. I think it would be a mistake to automatically assume that a modern phenotype necessarily belongs to a haplogroup ancestral to modern ones. Obviously the change to modern phenotype was not instantaneous.</i> He was not from Mars nor other Homo species, therefore it's only logical to conclude that he had Homo sapiens genetics. Making unclear speculative remarks will not help to get anything straight. Just show your preference for multirregionalism and interspecies hybridation that is not supported by any evidence so far. @Kambiz: <i>Luis, To clarify, I don’t prefer the older dates. I explicitly said the skull is considered to be from sometime in late Pleistocene China. I questioned Shen’s preference for the older dates.</i> Ok. I misunderstood you then. Sorry. @ Terryt:

Luis wrote: “preference for the older possible dates … seems like untenable on light of all the other known evidence, specially … genetics”. I think it would be a mistake to automatically assume that a modern phenotype necessarily belongs to a haplogroup ancestral to modern ones. Obviously the change to modern phenotype was not instantaneous.

He was not from Mars nor other Homo species, therefore it’s only logical to conclude that he had Homo sapiens genetics.

Making unclear speculative remarks will not help to get anything straight. Just show your preference for multirregionalism and interspecies hybridation that is not supported by any evidence so far.

@Kambiz:

Luis,

To clarify, I don’t prefer the older dates. I explicitly said the skull is considered to be from sometime in late Pleistocene China. I questioned Shen’s preference for the older dates.

Ok. I misunderstood you then. Sorry.

]]> By: moneduloides http://anthropology.net/2008/07/17/a-3d-computed-tomography-scan-of-the-liujiang-cranium/#comment-11836 moneduloides Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:22:04 +0000 http://anthropologynet.wordpress.com/?p=1025#comment-11836 It is quite an interesting find, seeing as if the dating is correct you get a complete restructuring of human evolution. The problem with scientific revolutions, as always is the case, is you need 'extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims'. Without a precise geologic stratum to place the Liujiang cranium we must choose Occam's razor and let it be. You will always have people willing to put forth the work to make extraordinary claims, and you will always have those sitting back and shooting down the claims due to bad science. If they truly wish to reconstruct the biogeography of human evolution then they must be scientific about it, not emotional. It is quite an interesting find, seeing as if the dating is correct you get a complete restructuring of human evolution. The problem with scientific revolutions, as always is the case, is you need ‘extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims’. Without a precise geologic stratum to place the Liujiang cranium we must choose Occam’s razor and let it be. You will always have people willing to put forth the work to make extraordinary claims, and you will always have those sitting back and shooting down the claims due to bad science. If they truly wish to reconstruct the biogeography of human evolution then they must be scientific about it, not emotional.

]]> By: terryt http://anthropology.net/2008/07/17/a-3d-computed-tomography-scan-of-the-liujiang-cranium/#comment-11814 terryt Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:47:03 +0000 http://anthropologynet.wordpress.com/?p=1025#comment-11814 Luis wrote: "preference for the older possible dates ... seems like untenable on light of all the other known evidence, specially ... genetics". I think it would be a mistake to automatically assume that a modern phenotype necessarily belongs to a haplogroup ancestral to modern ones. Obviously the change to modern phenotype was not instantaneous. Luis wrote: “preference for the older possible dates … seems like untenable on light of all the other known evidence, specially … genetics”. I think it would be a mistake to automatically assume that a modern phenotype necessarily belongs to a haplogroup ancestral to modern ones. Obviously the change to modern phenotype was not instantaneous.

]]> By: Kambiz Kamrani http://anthropology.net/2008/07/17/a-3d-computed-tomography-scan-of-the-liujiang-cranium/#comment-11810 Kambiz Kamrani Fri, 18 Jul 2008 04:35:57 +0000 http://anthropologynet.wordpress.com/?p=1025#comment-11810 Luis, To clarify, I don't prefer the older dates. I explicitly said the skull is considered to be from sometime in late Pleistocene China. I questioned Shen's preference for the older dates. Kambiz Luis,

To clarify, I don’t prefer the older dates. I explicitly said the skull is considered to be from sometime in late Pleistocene China. I questioned Shen’s preference for the older dates.

Kambiz

]]> By: Luis http://anthropology.net/2008/07/17/a-3d-computed-tomography-scan-of-the-liujiang-cranium/#comment-11806 Luis Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:10:17 +0000 http://anthropologynet.wordpress.com/?p=1025#comment-11806 Peter Brown (http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/Liujiang.html) has another U-date, but he seems unaware of the 2002 study: <i>More recently a Uranium series date of 67,000 +6000-5000 was reported for Liujiang (Wu 1988, 1990, 1992) which would make it the earliest example of modern Homo sapiens from the East Asian region. However, the stratigraphic relationship of the dated stalactite layer and the human skeletal materials can not be confirmed (Chen and Zhang 1991). At present it must be said that the Liujiang skeleton remains undated.</i> It would seem in any case that it may be a very old human remain (with all the uncertainties of this type of late datation) but your preference for the older possible dates (according to Guanjung Shen) seems like untenable on light of all the other known evidence, specially (but not only) genetics. A date of c. 68,000 fits both studies and would agree with the mainstream paradigm. If the narrow ("more likely") estimate in the 2002 paper of c. 111-139 ka. is correct anyhow, it would challenge the post-Toba part of the paradigm but not the OOA model at all. We need something more solid anyhow. Peter Brown (http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/Liujiang.html) has another U-date, but he seems unaware of the 2002 study:

More recently a Uranium series date of 67,000 +6000-5000 was reported for Liujiang (Wu 1988, 1990, 1992) which would make it the earliest example of modern Homo sapiens from the East Asian region. However, the stratigraphic relationship of the dated stalactite layer and the human skeletal materials can not be confirmed (Chen and Zhang 1991). At present it must be said that the Liujiang skeleton remains undated.

It would seem in any case that it may be a very old human remain (with all the uncertainties of this type of late datation) but your preference for the older possible dates (according to Guanjung Shen) seems like untenable on light of all the other known evidence, specially (but not only) genetics.

A date of c. 68,000 fits both studies and would agree with the mainstream paradigm. If the narrow (“more likely”) estimate in the 2002 paper of c. 111-139 ka. is correct anyhow, it would challenge the post-Toba part of the paradigm but not the OOA model at all.

We need something more solid anyhow.

]]>